1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMANTHA XOCHILT VALENZUELA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01061 JLT CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, 13 v. DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., (Doc. 8) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Samatha Xochilt Valenzuela initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 18 September 5, 2024 (Doc. 1), and the Court issued summons for the defendants the following day. 19 (Docs. 4, 5.) On November 11, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions 20 should not be imposed for her failure to prosecute this action and serve the summonses and 21 complaint on Defendants in a timely manner. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the order. 22 On December 6, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge observed that “90 days have passed 23 since Plaintiff’s filing of the complaint,” as required by the service deadline under Rule 4(m) of 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 8 at 2.) In addition, the magistrate judge found 25 Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders “to diligently pursue service of process and 26 promptly file proofs of service” and did not respond to the order to show cause. (Id. at 3.) The 27 magistrate judge found terminating sanctions are appropriate after considering the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). (Id. at 3-4.) 1 Plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan Bakhsheshian, filed a declaration in response to the Findings 2 and Recommendations, asserting that he and his coworker—the only attorneys in the office 3 registered to practice in the “Eastern Division”1—were on paternity leave and encountered issues 4 with service. (Doc. 9.) Counsel requested an extension of time to file proofs of service. (Id. at 5 4.) Upon receipt of the declaration, the magistrate judge indicated the Findings and 6 Recommendations would be “held in abeyance” and granted Plaintiff an extension of time to 7 complete service. (Doc. 10.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to “effect service of process and file 8 proofs of service thereof by no later than January 8, 2025.” (Id.) 9 On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed proofs of service related to service for the United States 10 Postal Service (Doc. 12), the United States Government (Doc. 13), and Daniel David Flores (Doc. 11 14). Plaintiff did not file proofs of service upon the County of Kern, the City of Shafter, or the 12 State of California. Significantly, the documents related to service for service upon the United 13 States Postal Service and the United States Government are plainly deficient, and do not 14 demonstrate proper service. (See Docs. 12, 13.) Toward this end, Plaintiff failed to comply with 15 the service requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—even with the extended 16 deadline ordered by the Court— for the following defendants: the United States Government, the 17 U.S. Postal Service, the State of California, the County of Kern, or the City of Shafter. The only 18 defendant upon whom Plaintiff properly effected service is Daniel David Flores. (See Doc. 14.) 19 As the magistrate judge observed, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “If a 20 defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its 21 own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant 22 or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Although the Court 23 granted Plaintiff an extension of time to serve the defendants after the magistrate judge issued the 24 Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff failed to serve the United States Government, the U.S. 25 Postal Service, the State of California, the County of Kern, or the City of Shafter. Plaintiff does 26 not show good cause for these failures. Accordingly, dismissal of these defendants is appropriate 27 due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve the defendants as previously ordered and required by Rule 4(m), 1 | as determined by the magistrate judge. 2 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 3 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 4 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. However, because Plaintiff filed proof of 5 || service upon Daniel David Flores by the extended deadline ordered as the Court held the 6 | Findings and Recommendations in abeyance, the claims against Mr. Flores will be permitted to 7 | proceed. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 6, 2024 (Doc. 8), are 9 ADOPTED in part. 10 2. Plaintiffs claims against the United States Postal Service, the United States 11 Government, the County of Kern, the City of Shafter, and the State of California 12 are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 4 of the 13 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 14 3. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: _ January 31, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28